Importing the Contemporary World into Religious Writings: Hermeneutical Problems in Interpreting Religious Texts

When studying religious traditions from a critical point of view, there are inevitably several problems that will arise. In particular, the proper interpretation of religious texts is an especially difficult and demanding task, for each interpreter that attempts to analyze these texts will bring personal preconceptions to the writings. Thus, a key concern for anyone who seeks to earnestly understand religious texts from a clinical point of view, is how one is to prevent one’s personal background from influencing one’s reading of the texts, and, furthermore, what sort of methodology might one adopt in order to approach the texts from a point of view that preserves the intrinsic integrity of such texts. These are some important considerations that both Bynum and Huntington address in their papers.

Inevitably when reading a religious text, one is disposed to impose one’s own personal life-experiences into the text. Hence, any two people who read a religious text might have significant differences in opinion in regards to the writing’s proper interpretation. For example, a fourteenth century Catholic priest would likely interpret the creation accounts of Genesis 1-2 quite differently from a twenty-first century religious studies student. Similarly, a contemporary Evangelical Protestant’s reading of the Epistle of James would likely differ from a Roman Catholic reading of the same epistle (especially with regards to 2:14-26 on faith and works). Hence, there are considerable disagreements which arise over the interpretation of religious texts from one person to another, and such predispositions are difficult to overcome. Thus, many interpreters will employ various methods in order to separate themselves from personal bias and to better understand the texts’ meaning.

However, methodologies themselves are problematic, which Bynum and Huntington both acknowledge. For example, many modern critical methodologies are largely twenty and twenty-first century western constructions presuming to properly understand people(s) from different eras and cultures. Bynum notes that modern scholarship often emphasizes sex and money, which “may tell us more about the twentieth century than the late Middle Ages” (“Introduction” 1). This is clear, Bynum explains, since the medieval thinkers were far more concerned with gluttony and hunger, which had to do with the preparation of the reception of the Eucharist (2-4).

Similarly, Huntington picks up this issue explaining that there are many interpretive difficulties in understanding the Mādhyamika literature due to its recent introduction to the west (“Methodological Considerations” 9). In particular, Huntington remarks that there are many interpretive problems for western scholars who read a literary tradition that is so foreign to them. Huntington maintains that it is essential to understand the background and context of the text in order to understand the piece itself (9). Similarly, Bynum emphasizes the importance of this as well, stating “women’s behavior and women’s writing must be understood in the context of social, economic, and ecclesiastical structures, theological and devotional traditions, very different from our own” (“Introduction” 9).

Hence, both Bynum and Huntington address the issue of coming to a richer understanding of the background of a text. Accordingly, Bynum attempts to separate herself from any potential personal spiritual concerns that she may bring to the texts and states that her research is not concerned with whether the miracles she considers are “true”. Rather, she is concerned about the stories that interested the medieval audience (8). However, this separation of the verifiability of miracles from the interests of the audience of the era is also problematic. Huntington draws attention to this problem; in particular, Huntington makes a comparison between the text-critical method (which he maintains is unconcerned with questions about meaning) and the alternative “proselytic” model (“Methodological Considerations” 6). Furthermore, he points out that “strict adherence to the text-critical and proselytic models constitutes a violation of the very texts we bring to our study” (8). Accordingly, Huntington’s methodological approach includes principles of “text-critical scholarship while simultaneously rejecting the largely unstated presuppositions of “objectivity” that normally accompany them” (12-13). Hence, Huntington asserts his position that the objective position is not necessarily the most fruitful method for approaching a religious text. Bynum also remarks on the futility of taking a single approach and states that historians could gain a lot by making use of “anthropology, sociology and art history” (“In Praise of Fragments: History in the Comic Mode”15 ).

Thus, Bynum and Huntington both demonstrate some of the issues involved in textual interpretation. They shed light on the problems of bringing personal predispositions to texts, the problems of a strictly “objective” approach to the text, and the problems of approaching a text with a single method. Moreover, they emphasize the importance for understanding the world behind the text for the proper interpretation of the text (especially in a contemporary western setting). In summation, I believe that the problems described in these essays demonstrates the importance of a collaborative approach to studying religious texts, because personal prejudices and seemingly all methodological approaches to religious texts have their limitations which may only begin to be rectified by the synthesizing of ideas.